Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ?

[2stroke]

:) Hello !

Could anybody help me with some pictures, blueprints/drawings and facts/history about the Focke Wulf Ta-183

Especially what happened to the prototypes captured by the Russians and the Allied ( USA and so on )


Here are some pictures :

* http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ta183drawingjpg2cn.jpg

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/3130/ta1833vd2ce.jpg

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/2748/windtunnel4ou.jpg

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/6102/ta1833vd8ot.jpg


And some nice pictures on a modell that sommbody have build :

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/2213/05mmm0oa.jpg

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/783/04nnn4ru.jpg

* http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/6061/01c5nm.jpg



PLEASE help me out on this one !

// 2stroke

[GregP]

Hi @stroke,

The Ta-183 was never built. It was a design only. Some drawings went to the Soviet Union after WWII and were eventually realized as the MiG-15. It's damned close to the Ta-183, but the MiG-15 is supposed to be an independent design. I do not know the real story, but rumors of both an independent MiG-15 design as well as it being a modified Ta-183 persist to this day, some in print with little or no factual basis.

Kurt Tank emigrated to Argentina. So did the French expatriate Emile Dewoitine.

Dewoitine deisnged the FMA Pulkui (or Pulqui) while Tank designed the Pulkui II (or Pulqui II). The Pulkui II looks very much like the Ta-183 design, but was updated somewhat. It flew in 1950, but did not fly again until 1959, leading many to conclude there were some serious design problems. Meanwhile, the prototype had crashed. It strongly resembled the MiG-15 excpt for being a shoulder-wing aircraft like the Lavochkin La-168 / 176 of about the same time period.

Hope that helps.

[Kutscha]

2stroke,

David Myhra has published a book on the Ta183. ISBN 0-7643-0907-2

You should check out http://www.luft46.com/

More drawings, http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/

[Trexx]

Fascinating.
I too have read of a South American example coming to fruition. The aircraft did have stability problems according to the literature. I'm not sure how closely the plane resembled the renderings provided...

Kurt Tanks stuff is great engineering adventure... fun to study.

[2stroke]

www.luft46.com

In late 1942, Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp headed up a design team that started aerodynamic studies for a new turbojet fighter.
This culminated in 1945 as a fighter project known as "Huckebein" later to be given the designation Ta 183.
The Ta 183 had a short, squat fuselage with the air intake passing under the cockpit and proceeding to the rear where the single He S 011 turbojet was located, although the first three prototypes were to be powered by Jumo 004B jet engines.
The wings were very thin, swept back at 40 degrees and were mounted in the mid-fuselage position.
A tapered main wing spar constructed of two duraluminum I-beams with steel flanges formed a torque box, with the attachment at the fuselage consisting of a single bolt.
The wing structure was completed by adding bonded wooden ribs with a plywood covering.
The huge fin was swept back at 60 degrees, with the tailplane mounted on the top of the fin.
The tailplane also exhibited considerable dihedral.
Wing elevons and the rudder provided control, the tailplane control surfaces only being used for trimming.
The flaps and landing gear were operated hydraulically.
The pilot sat in a pressurized cockpit with a bubble canopy which provided excellent all-around vision.

In Febuary 1945, the OKL (High Command of the Luftwaffe) decided that the Ta-183 was chosen to be further developed and produced.
There were to be sixteen ( 16 ) Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft :
* Ta-183 V1-V3 to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet ( while waiting for delivery of the He S 011 jet engine).
* Ta-183 V4-V14 as 0-series preproduction aircraft and
* Ta-183 V15-V16 as static test aircraft.

The maiden flight of the first aircraft was planned for May/June of 1945.
The first production aircraft were scheduled to be completed by October 1945, but no examples of the Ta 183 were completed because on April 8, 1945 British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities.

After the war, the Ta 183 story continued.
The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta-183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau.
On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta-183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet.
They discovered that the original Ta-183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail.
The modified Ta-183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15.

Meanwhile, Kurt Tank (head of the Focke-Wulf design department) had left Germany to go to Argentina in 1947.
There Tank was to build a tubojet powered fighter for the Argentine Air Force, and he decided to build the Ta 183.
Tank made several changes to Multhopp's original design mainly the wing being changed to a shoulder mounted position.
The first flight of the so called "Pulqui II" was made on June 27, 1950.

www.luft46.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Is this information 100% accurate and confirmed ?

[Pete57]

2stroke

I think you'll find this, previous post very interesting:)

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=200

[2stroke]

I have already reed it.

THANX anyway !

- - - - - - - - - -

:( I'm not so intrested if the Ta-183 was later developed to any Russian or other airplane bla bla bla bla.....

:) I'm intressted in just the history of the Ta-183 Air plane !!!

* Facts
* Figures
* Blueprints
* Dravings
* Photos
* etc, etc, etc, etc,

and of course what happened to the captured material, mock up , and so on by the Russian & the Allied

PLEASE send me everything you have !

[2stroke]

Here you have the Ta-183 [u]in USA 1947</u> during a Windtunel test !

* http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6112/1947windtuneltestinusa1kh.jpg

[Nick Sumner]

The Ta183 would have been severly outclassed by Allied designs had the war continued past 1946/47, Its Engine (HeS011) never worked properly (even the Russians without the severe metalurgy problems the Germans had couldn't get the design to work well).

Look at the T/W ratio of Ta183 and Allied designs of the same generation and you'll see the problem.

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner


Look at the T/W ratio of Ta183 and Allied designs of the same generation and you'll see the problem.



What is T/W ratio ??

[Nick Sumner]

quote:What is T/W ratio ??

Thrust to Weight

[Trexx]

It's all SUPER-COOL to me...

[WarBirdMan]

If u look at it from a different angle it resembles a...MIG 13 OR 15.[:p]

'There's three type of pilots:good,bad and dead!'

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by WarBirdMan

If u look at it from a different angle it resembles a...MIG 13 OR 15.[:p]

'There's three type of pilots:good,bad and dead!'


The Mig-15 heavily resembles it.

1) Annular nose air intake (the most obvious)
2) Gigantic fin
3) Fin mounted stabilizer (albeit, from a T-tail to a compromise mid-mounted unit)

[2stroke]

Here is another picture of the Ta-183

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1246/ta183inair2he.jpg

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

Here is another picture of the Ta-183

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1246/ta183inair2he.jpg




From that angle it strongly resembles a SAAB J-29 Tunnan.

[simon]

Good point Corsarius although the tail is different and the engine outlet also different.

Being cynical here though the markings look like they may have been superimposed. Any background to this picture? Where/when was it supposed to have been taken?

[WarBirdMan]

Well,the markings could be original!U know how the rusians steal every good design and then say it's their own!:)

[simon]

Yes they could be original, the point I was making was that they look superimposed, i.e. very dark and with very pronounced outlines, I am reminded of a picture of a Do17 crashing during the Battle of Britain in Len Deighton's "Fighter" which carries a description that the markings have been "touched up" for the picture. The markings on the Do17 seem similarly extra-dark and extra-pronounced although in this case they're at least supposed to be black in colour, not red.

Without any reliable evidence I personally would conclude that this picture is probably a fake, of course that is assuming that no reliable corroberation comes to light.

I fully admit to having done no real research on this specific aircraft but on the strength of Robert's article (I'll call it that, it's far too well written just to be referred to as a post), and on the evidence I've seen, I'd assume that the picture is not entirely genuine.

[2stroke]

PLEASE get back to the Topic !!!

Can anybody help me with information regarding Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ??

* Blueprints / Drawings
* Pictures
* Facts & Dimensions
* History
* bla bla bla bla


HELP !! [:p]

// 2stroke

[simon]

Excuse me? [}:)]

The topic is the Ta183, I was discussing a picture that you posted of the Ta183 OK? If the picture is genuine that's interesting as it shows that one was actually built and flew. If the picture is not genuine, that equally that's interesting because it means that it is not proof that one was actually built and flew.

Either way it contributes to the accumulation of facts that you claim to want. Little outbursts (Please be aware that typing in capitals is the discussion forum equivilent of shouting at people)when a topic strays of your intended course are not going make people particularly inclined to help you with your research.

You live in Sweden according to your profile, have you tried contacting to SAAB to see what happened to their research and paper work? (I understood that some of the work from the Ta183 found its way to Sweden)

You may not be interested in the further history and development of the Ta183, but others including myself are, and this is a forum for everybody, not just yourself. If you feel you are not getting the information you want perhaps you could consider phrasing your request a bit more differently than "etc, etc, etc," or "blah, blah, blah", which implies that you want general information as well.

If the thread strays too far off course or too far from the forum's remit it is up to the Moderator or Admin to deal with it, not you. Please remember that.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

PLEASE get back to the Topic !!!

Can anybody help me with information regarding Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ??

* Blueprints / Drawings
* Pictures
* Facts & Dimensions
* History
* bla bla bla bla


HELP !! [:p]

// 2stroke


What was wrong with drawings in the links I gave you? Not good enough? Well you won't find any better unless you get hold of the original Fw drawings.[:0]

Dispite what Robert says, get the Myrha book for it has lots and lots of photos. Don't be so cheap.

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Excuse me? [}:)]

The topic is the Ta183, I was discussing a picture that you posted of the Ta183 OK? If the picture is genuine that's interesting as it shows that one was actually built and flew. If the picture is not genuine, that equally that's interesting because it means that it is not proof that one was actually built and flew.

Either way it contributes to the accumulation of facts that you claim to want. Little outbursts (Please be aware that typing in capitals is the discussion forum equivilent of shouting at people)when a topic strays of your intended course are not going make people particularly inclined to help you with your research.

You live in Sweden according to your profile, have you tried contacting to SAAB to see what happened to their research and paper work? (I understood that some of the work from the Ta183 found its way to Sweden)

You may not be interested in the further history and development of the Ta183, but others including myself are, and this is a forum for everybody, not just yourself. If you feel you are not getting the information you want perhaps you could consider phrasing your request a bit more differently than "etc, etc, etc," or "blah, blah, blah", which implies that you want general information as well.

If the thread strays too far off course or too far from the forum's remit it is up to the Moderator or Admin to deal with it, not you. Please remember that.


I'm terrible sorry if I have offending someone !

Forgive me !


- - - - - - - - - -

Kutcka

Thanx for the link to the site with the drawings

it was really helping me !

// 2stroke

[simon]

It's not that you have offended me, but you have to understand that it is impossible to type the way you speak. As a general convention from a number of forums I am or have been members of, typing in capital letters is regarded as the same as shouting in a face to face discussion. Some forums will ban or delete automatically posts that include words typed just in capitals.

People will read things they way they think you meant them instead of how you think you've typed them.

As a friendly suggestion, just let discussions run their course, there's nothing wrong with trying to stear them back on track but try not to do so in a manner that makes it seem like you are being impatient or short tempered.

At the very least a comment on your thread moves it back up to the top of the forum again and keeps it in people's minds.

If someone's post has provided useful information, don't forget to thank them for it, a quick thanks puts your thread back at the top again, plus it lets the poster know that their efforts or information have been appreciated.

If I were you I would contact SAAB, the official channels tend to be the slowest but more likely to give concrete results. From my limited readings I understand that the design of the Ta183 influenced the immediate post-war SAAB aircraft designs, perhaps they have some information in their archives that they might be willing to share? I could be completely wrong, but it seems like it might be worth a try.

Glad to see that Kutscha's links have been of help to you.

[2stroke]

Thanx Simon for the tips how to write in a forum !

I'm a completly newbie to the computer world [:p]

But I hope to learn more !

// 2stroke

[2stroke]

:) Does anybody have some more information regarding the Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ?[?]

// 2stroke

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

:) Does anybody have some more information regarding the Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ?[?]



Where's my thwacking stick? I'm going to give him more than two strokes from it if he keeps this up....[:p]

[Lightning]

I'm going to have a stroke if he keeps it up!

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

:) Does anybody have some more information regarding the Focke-Wulf Ta-183 ?[?]

// 2stroke


Yes, some were I had drawings of the two options a, and b, looked at.
From memory the first was selected for The Ta-183; but the second was a bit nearer the Argentinian. I do have problems finding things at the moment, when the house is sorted will post the drawings in a few weeks time.

Side issue do you have anything on the history of SAAB's very advanced early (rocket powered?) ejector seats pre 1946??

[2stroke]

Quote: Groggy
I do have problems finding things at the moment, when the house is sorted will post the drawings in a few weeks time.

Side issue do you have anything on the history of SAAB's very advanced early (rocket powered?) ejector seats pre 1946??// Quote


THANX "Groggy" !

------------------

I'l be waiting on the stuff that you have ! :D Thanx !


http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/Articles/seat_history.htm

If you scroll down a bit you will find some stuff about the SAAB ejector seat.

Maybee it will help you..


// 2stroke

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by WarBirdMan

Well,the markings could be original!U know how the rusians steal every good design and then say it's their own!:)


http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwflitz.html

Look familiar?

[simon]

Looks like a Vampire, but bear in mind the de Havilland were already working on the Vampire at the same time this was being designed so it's not a case that the British "Stole" the Vampire from FW.

[Kutscha]

Was not the Vampire prototype flying in 1943? Hard to 'copy' the Fw paper design then.

One German design, the Ju EF128, has a resemblance to the Vought F7U Cutlass, though Vought says it had no influence on their design.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by WarBirdMan

Well,the markings could be original!U know how the rusians steal every good design and then say it's their own!:)


http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwflitz.html

Look familiar?

Wuzak
Yes and no.Thanks for the lead, the photographs are interesting.
There is an original model, maybe windtunnel model of the Flitzer in the aeronutical gallery at the Science Museum , London.
When I find the drawings you will see the two studies are variants on the same theme and not the twin boom approach.

[ChrisMcD]

My understanding is that both the Vampire and the Flitzer were attempts to minimise ducting and trunking losses for single jet engines, at a time when nobody was sure how critical it was.

The thinking was that the best way to minimise losses in the ducts was to keep them as short and straight as possible.

You could argue that the very short fuselage of the Ta 183 and the superimposed engine of the He 162 also show this thinking

[WarBirdMan]

Also a Focke Wulf-TL EntwurfIII!:)
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=dzz67a

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

My understanding is that both the Vampire and the Flitzer were attempts to minimise ducting and trunking losses for single jet engines, at a time when nobody was sure how critical it was.

The thinking was that the best way to minimise losses in the ducts was to keep them as short and straight as possible.

You could argue that the very short fuselage of the Ta 183 and the superimposed engine of the He 162 also show this thinking


Accurate, and well said.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

My understanding is that both the Vampire and the Flitzer were attempts to minimise ducting and trunking losses for single jet engines, at a time when nobody was sure how critical it was.

The thinking was that the best way to minimise losses in the ducts was to keep them as short and straight as possible.

You could argue that the very short fuselage of the Ta 183 and the superimposed engine of the He 162 also show this thinking


Even after the war and into the early 50s there were some very stubby designs presumably for the same reason (Saab, and I think both French and US designs). The DH Sea Vixen was also in this 'tradition', as were the Mace, the Regulus II and the Snark.

[Wuzak]

I must admit that I thought after I posted that the Vampire was being developed before the surrender of Germany.

Since then I have discovered that the Vampire prototype flew in September 1943. It became operational in 1946.

Which begs the question, if the Me 262 had been able to cause more chaos would they have fast tracked its developement? Could it have been operational in WW2? Would it have been any better than the Meteor?

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Wuzak
To reply to your question - would the Vampire have been any better than the Meteor

Probably yes. The Meteor was a good design but not as fast as the 262, whereas the Vampire was probably a match on performance and had a much more reliable engine.

I think that the difference between the Brits and the Germans was that the UK's 1944 models of fighters (ie Tempests etc.) were adequate. So that there was not the frantic pressure (and risk) to get jets into action. Meteors were chasing V1's in mid 1944, but only went to the Continent much later.

If 262's had been a problem over the battlefield Vampires would have shipped out earlier - but with their short endurance they would have been useless to protect the B17's that were the 262's main targets.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

Hi Wuzak
To reply to your question - would the Vampire have been any better than the Meteor

Probably yes. The Meteor was a good design but not as fast as the 262, whereas the Vampire was probably a match on performance and had a much more reliable engine.

I think that the difference between the Brits and the Germans was that the UK's 1944 models of fighters (ie Tempests etc.) were adequate. So that there was not the frantic pressure (and risk) to get jets into action. Meteors were chasing V1's in mid 1944, but only went to the Continent much later.

If 262's had been a problem over the battlefield Vampires would have shipped out earlier - but with their short endurance they would have been useless to protect the B17's that were the 262's main targets.


Early Vampires had a range of over 800 miles, which (December '44) would have been useful from bases in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. By the F3 Vampire range was 1200+ miles. Vampires were the first jet to cross the Atlantic under their own power (island hopping to Labrador ?1949). The prototype (Sept '43) to squadron delivery (May 1945) time was typical for the period, but I am sure with its simple design the Vampire could have been sped up if there had been any advantage. By December '44 the UK was limiting its military investment.
Meteors were slower until the trick of extending the tail pipes was recognised. The RAF Meteor squadrons in Holland wanted to take on the Me 262s but were forbidden. Despite notional inferiorities the strength of the Meteor airframe (demonstrated later in Korea) and the reliability of the engines (including at altitude) would have made for an interesting contest that would have gone to whichever side could play to its strengths. An allied strength being the ability to work in concert with Tempests/Griffon Spitfires/Mustangs.

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
Xxxxxxx were slower until the trick of extending the tail pipes was recognised.


Curmudgeon :

Please explain moore about this !!

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Curmudgeon,

Should have checked more carefully! Vampire no 51 had a jump in fuel capacity from 202 to 326 Imp gallons and got a jump in range to 730 miles at 380 mph at 30,000 ft (ref William Green, Fighters Vol II). And they could stick wing tanks on as well!

So, why wern't the Vampires hacking down 262's?

As you say, there seems to have been a lack of urgency.

By the way you have to give it to de Havilland.

They get Frank Hallford to make a superb jet engine (also in the P80), even if they do call it the 'goblin'

Saw the front off a Mosquito. Bolt the engine on the back. Stick tiny wings and tailbooms on it (as per the DH2) and end up with the best jet fighter of its time.

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

My understanding is that both the X and the Y were attempts to minimise ducting and trunking losses for single jet engines, at a time when nobody was sure how critical it was.

The thinking was that the best way to minimise losses in the ducts was to keep them as short and straight as possible.

You could argue that the very short fuselage of the Ta 183 and the superimposed engine of the He 162 also show this thinking


ChrisMcD :

Please explain moore about this !!

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
Xxxxxxx were slower until the trick of extending the tail pipes was recognised.


Curmudgeon :

Please explain moore about this !!




http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/Snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=455

has a discussion of Me262/Gloster Meteor and info on this. Increasing the length of the engine nacelles significantly increased the speed of the Meteor without needing bigger engines ... avoided some airflow interactions between wing and engine.

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
Increasing the length of the engine nacelles significantly increased the speed of the Meteor without needing bigger engines.....
avoided some airflow interactions between wing and engine.


Can you show an example of this in a picture ?

[Pete57]

I have always wondered why the British Ministry of Production prioritized the Meteor’s development over the Vampire’s, in a move reminiscent of the Luftwaffe’s choice of the Me.262 over the Heinkel 280.

A lot has been written on the ‘tragedy’ of the ‘delayed’ service entry of the Schwalbe, but I belong to the ranks of those who believe the 262’s development would have been ‘too late’ to influence the outcome of the conflict, irrespective of the alleged Hitler’s meddling with the program.
The Heinkel 280 even in its initial, somewhat preliminary configuration, a 500mph aircraft in 1942-43, would have been an awesome weapon system, but Willi Messerschmitt’s commercial skills – and in no small measure his political connections – managed to ensure the 262’s development and the 280’s cancellation.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 262 was the better design, but – and possibly for this very reason – its development turned out to be a long term affair, and in 1942-43, faced with the choice between a decidedly superior fighter that was almost ready to be fielded and a possibly even better fighter with an uncertain future, the powers that be in Germany chose the second option.

In England, Frank Whittle’s attempt to get Rover to implement a blade twist that would greatly improve the thrust and reliability of his second-generation turbojet – the W2B – was met with the outmost contempt.
Unbeknownst to Whittle, Rover was temporarily ‘shelving’ Whittle’s ‘reverse-flow’ design over its own ‘straight-thru’ design, thus potentially jeopardizing England’s turbojet and jet fighter programs, and whereas a Ministry of Air Production’s investigation should have been immediately started, this actually never took place.
Rescue came from Rolls-Royce’s management, prompted by the understanding of the turbojet’s potentials by their technical department, taking over Rover’s facilities and programs. (I recommend those who want to learn more about this specific subject, to get one of the several books published about Frank Whittle and his achievements)

In the meantime, the Meteor’s prototype (the F.9/40) flew on March 5, 1943, powered by two De Havilland H.1 turbojets, the very engine that De Havilland had developed for its own design, the Vampire.
The H-1 Goblin, had been designed by Major Frank Halford with a high thrust target (for the time), and it is a fact that when the Vampire prototype first flew on September 20, 1943 (September 26, according to some sources), it was the fastest and most maneuverable jet fighter flying in the UK.
The Vampire enjoyed other advantages over the Meteor from the production point of view. It was a simpler cheaper design, using (in De Havilland’s best tradition) non-strategic materials – i.e. wood – thru part of its structure, and its engine was manufactured by the same company that produced the airframe.

As in the Me-262/He-280 affair, the Meteor was the better design, but it would take longer to develop: it was not until the Mk IV version flew, in August 1945, that the Meteor finally managed to outperform the Vampire, thanks to an increase in the nacelles’ length (both front and rear, tested on an early Mk I) and, in no small measure, to more powerful turbojets (each slightly more powerful than the Vampire’s single H-1B Goblin).

I don’t necessarily agree there was a lack of urgency on the RAF’s side to get a jet fighter into service, considering how the Meteor reached squadron service in the Summer of 1944, a little over a year since its first flight; what I find really hard to understand, on the other hand, is the reasons why the Meteor was prioritized over the Vampire.
Was the 200-odd day head-start on the first flight the only reason or are we looking again at political pressures instead?

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57


The Meteor finally managed to outperform the Vampire, thanks to an increase in the nacelles’ length (both front and rear, tested on an early Mk I) and, in no small measure, to more powerful turbojets (each slightly more powerful than the Vampire’s single H-1B Goblin).


Please explain moore about what this is ?
Can somebody maybe show a picture of it ?

[Nick Sumner]

The He 280 wasn't put into production for the simple reason that the Nazis were stupid.

Ernst Heinkel, never got a fair bash, the He112 was a beter aircraft than the Bf109 according to all the test pilots who flew them in competition, but as far as the Nazi heirarchy were concerned Ernst suffered from 'Schwabian Pig-headedness and an un-Germanic face' (I kid you not). Willi on the other hand looked the part.

The Bf110 was also inferior to the FW187 (again according to the pilots). But what would the pilots know? Willi was the Nazis boy so hard luck Kurt.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Two Stroke
___________________________________
Originally posted by ChrisMcD

My understanding is that both the X and the Y were attempts to minimise ducting and trunking losses for single jet engines, at a time when nobody was sure how critical it was.

Please explain more about this !!
____________________________________

I am not sure that I can specificaly.

The late 30's and 40's were a time when designers were a bit flaky on how to go about reducing the drag from cooling and ducting. You just have to look at the way designs like the Thunderbolt or Lightning are built round their supercharger ducts.

Or take Hawker. The variations in the radiator design for the Typhoon/Tempest series include; beard, wing root, annular and simple bath underneath the fuselage (just to show real eccenticity Camm then split the jet flow in the Sea Hawk!!)

So there was a tendency to try and keep it simple if possible (by most people anyway).

Getting back to the Vampire. De Havilland knew a lot about ducting (the Albatross had reversed flow ducts to air cooled engines and the Mosquito has wing leading edge radiators).

So it is interesting that they appear to have tried to minimise risk by keeping the ducting as simple as possible.

As far as I know the Vampire had a fairly trouble free development - which makes Pete57's point. Why was it's development not pushed faster?

I would guess that one problem would be that de Havilland were simply overstretched with Mosquito development and production in Australian and Canada.

[Kutscha]

Chris, they also had the Hornet they were working on. Did not the Americans get an engine that was slated for a Vampire prototype?

The Meteor had 2 engines and knowing the low reliability of early jet engines this might have been a factor in going with the Meteor.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Kutscha,

Could well be. I know that landing a 262 on one engine was a hairy experience, but have never seen anything about the Meteor being tricky.

As far as I know it was fairly idiot proof. Hence the revised RAF checklist for jets - "kick the tyres, light the fires and last man off's a cissy"

Somehow it does not sound like an aircraft that frightened it's pilots!

[Trexx]

That Milch guy, in charge of German production had much to do with the selection of what aircraft were going to be built. Willy Messerschmitt had airplanes that were easier to produce. And that was by design. Therin lies the undiscussed genious of Messerschmitt.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Trexx,

I agree Messerschmidt got the inside line and Heinkel (he of the jewish nose) got frozen out.

But Milch hated Messerschmidt with a passion (some squable back in his Lufthansa days).

So there is more to it than that.

Perhaps one of our German experten can help?

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

Hi Trexx,

I agree Messerschmidt got the inside line and Heinkel (he of the jewish nose) got frozen out.

But Milch hated Messerschmidt with a passion (some squable back in his Lufthansa days).

So there is more to it than that.

Perhaps one of our German experten can help?


Yes, yes. That would be appropriate.

There's always more to know. This stuff is quite compelling, and great fun.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by 2stroke

quote:Originally posted by Pete57


The Meteor finally managed to outperform the Vampire, thanks to an increase in the nacelles’ length (both front and rear, tested on an early Mk I) and, in no small measure, to more powerful turbojets (each slightly more powerful than the Vampire’s single H-1B Goblin).


Please explain moore about what this is ?
Can somebody maybe show a picture of it ?


Hi 2-Stroke, any others,

Google for "Gloster Meteor", you'll find lots of photos.
The prototypes and F1 and F3 have short nacelles (except for the second (or third?) prototype that had axial flow Metrovick engines installed, and low-slung engine pods like the Me262 ...). The inlet is at the leading edge of the wing and the jet pipe is a thin little thing that might extend a foot beyond the trailing edge. The F4 (and later) has longer engine nacelles extending well forward of the leading edge and well aft of the trailing edge of the wing. Apparently late in the war some F3s were field modified to have an extended jet pipe at the rear and this pushed the speed up considerably for no increase in engine thrust.

By spring 1944 the Vampire prototypes and preproduction aircraft were comfortably exceeding 500mph almost throughout their altitude range. And the H-1 morphing into the Goblin was very reliable

[Wuzak]

Very interesting discussion guys.

Was the extension of the Meteor's jet pipe just a straight pipe, or were they experimenting with a different nozzle design?

I can see how extending the intake forward of the leading edge would give better intake conditions for the engine.

I agree with Pete. If the Germans had adopted the He280 they could have had jet aircraft with suprior speed to the enemy earlier in the war, and they would still have been free to develop the more advanced 262 for later deployment (and being much closer to bug free than when they did release it).

An interesting jet aircarft for me is the Arado 234, and its variants. The initial design had a small bomb load (about 1000lb IIRC), but had a top speed of around 500mph. Its sea level speed was around 450mph - far superior to Allied fighters, apart from the jets, perhaps. I understand its development was too late for their use, however.

PS When did the P59 and P80 first fly?

[Kutscha]

Wuzak,

the tail pipe was extended some and the fairing of the nacelle was extended to the end of the pipe. This extension was to the middle of the small access hatch in the side of the fuselage when before the pipe ended just aft of the panel line on the fuselage at the wing joint. (in side view)

drawing of the early Mk, http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/avia/gloster_meteor.htm

Pick up the S/S book on the Meteor, #1152.

If you want to know about American a/c, this site is not to bad, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/

[2stroke]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

[quote]
The prototypes and F1 and F3 have short nacelles (except for the second (or third?) prototype that had axial flow Metrovick engines installed, and low-slung engine pods like the Me262 ...). The inlet is at the leading edge of the wing and the jet pipe is a thin little thing that might extend a foot beyond the trailing edge. The F4 (and later) has longer engine nacelles extending well forward of the leading edge and well aft of the trailing edge of the wing. Apparently late in the war some F3s were field modified to have an extended jet pipe at the rear and this pushed the speed up considerably for no increase in engine thrust.


F-3 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/9881/f31vr.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f31vr.jpg)

F-4 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/1915/f43et.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f43et.jpg)

F-8 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/3083/f89jk.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f89jk.jpg)

FR-9 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/2046/fr97ki.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fr97ki.jpg)

NF-11 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/6497/nf117eb.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nf117eb.jpg)

NF-14 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/9595/nf141hj.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nf141hj.jpg)

PR-10 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/2421/pr104xs.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pr104xs.jpg)

T-7 , http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/5082/t71xa.th.jpg (http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t71xa.jpg)

[Trexx]

Excellent work, once again. Thanks for the fun read and information!

[Wuzak]

Thanks for the links Kutscha.

From Joe Bauer's site I discovered that the P59 first flew before the Vampire, but was considered unsuitable for combat (ie current fighters were more capable and faster!). The P80 was a bit later in development, but pre-production YP-80As flew missions in WW2 in early 1945, but did not see combat.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Thanks for the links Kutscha.

From Joe Bauer's site I discovered that the P59 first flew before the Vampire, but was considered unsuitable for combat (ie current fighters were more capable and faster!). The P80 was a bit later in development, but pre-production YP-80As flew missions in WW2 in early 1945, but did not see combat.


The wikipedia sites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_jet_power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan-Vickers_Beryl give an important timeline on all this. It would appear axial flow engine designs were just a little bit beyond the technology of the mid 1940s and both the German and British developers of axial flow engines were faltering on the edge of greatness, but unable to cross. In contrast the Whittle-type centrifugal flow engines were achievable and reliable.

Also of note ... the flight of the first Vampire was put back so the engine could be taken to the US to power the first XP-80 ... apparently the original engine provided to Lockheed was brewed in ground runs.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

Also of note ... the flight of the first Vampire was put back so the engine could be taken to the US to power the first XP-80 ... apparently the original engine provided to Lockheed was brewed in ground runs.


quote:A flyable Halford engine was delivered to Lockheed in mid November of 1943. The de Havilland-built Halford H.1B turbojet had a bench thrust of 3000 pounds at 10,500 rpm and an installed thrust of 2460 pounds at 9500 rpm. On November 17, 1943, while the H.1B engine installation in the XP-80 was undergoing ground testing, both intake ducts collapsed, and the ingestion of debris damaged the engine. While waiting a replacement engine, the ducts were strengthened. The British selflessly rushed over a replacement engine which had been intended for the number 2 Vampire fighter. The replacement engine arrived on December 28 and was promptly installed in the XP-80.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_1.html

Must have underestimated the suction of the jet engine.

[Pete57]

It should be remembered that when the Meteor prototypes (the F.9/40s) flew, there were still many ‘grey areas’ both in the fields of aerodynamic configuration and engines.

The first F.9/40 (DG202/G) had been earmarked for the Rover turbojets, the third (DG204/G) for Metropolitan-Vicker’s F.1s, axial-flow turbojets with the fifth, to test the De Havilland's H-1s.
The Metro-Vick F.1s were mounted in pods suspended under the wing in a configuration not unlike that chosen by the German designers for both the He-280 and the Me-262, whereas all the other engines were fitted inside two short pods, with the wing's main spar passinf thru them (a configuration later used also on the English Electric Camberra, and in the USSR by the Alekseyev I-211/215).

It was soon discovered that the standard short, “fat” nacelles were causing excessive drag, so much so that the H-1 engined prototype’s extra power (the H-1 diameter was fairly large, thus exasperating the problem), was for a good part offset by the nacelles’ extra drag, and the aircraft could only marginally benefit from the extra thrust available.

In order to cure this problem, EE-211/G, the second aircraft of the first, production version (the F.Mk.I), was fitted with extended nacelles. This modification proved to have cured the problem and to have raised the aircraft’s critical Mach number.

This modification did not see widespread use until the last batch of the second version’s production (the F.Mk.III).

The first flight of the E.6/41 “Spidercrab” (the Vampire’s prototype) was not delayed by the handover of the engine to Lockheed (this happening after said, first flight had taken place on September 20, 1943).
If this first flight was indeed delayed, then this can only be blamed on the decision to provide two specimen to Gloster, in order to get their F.9/40 airborne, thus confirming some kind of political pressure.

Lockheed had originally procured one H-1B engine for their XP-80, but on November 17, 1943, during a ground run-up, preparatory to the first flight, the intake duct collapsed as a result of the engine suction, and the first flight had to be postponed to allow replacement and stiffening of the ducts themselves.
I believe, this was mainly caused by two factors:
1. lack of experience on Lockheed’s side with the forces involved
2. haste to complete the prototype to meet the contractual requirement (Lockheed had committed itself to deliver a prototype in 180 days!!!)
The H-1B’s impeller was found to have been damaged and a new engine had to be procured. Curiously, the damage to the impeller had not been caused by debris from the intake duct, but rather by some construction flaw, and it was actually a fortunate coincidence that the accident itself had happened as there were good chances that the engine could have suffered a failure during the first flight with possible catastrophic consequences.
The replacement H-1B is the one that had originally been earmarked for the E.6/41’s second prototype whose first flight had thus to be postponed.

The XP-80, fist flew at Muroc on January 8, 1944 at 9:10 a.m.
The Bell XP-59 Airacomet first – and un-officially – flew in the early afternoon of October 1, 1942, with the first, official flight taking place the following day, both at Muroc

[2stroke]

I really thinks this is a very intresting subject guys !!

----------------------------------

But please do not left the original topic...

Focke-Wulf Ta-183 !!

I'm a newbie to the computer world so I hope there is not be any hard feelings for me steering this tread back on track....

:D:D

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57


The first flight of the E.6/41 “Spidercrab” (the Vampire’s prototype) was not delayed by the handover of the engine to Lockheed (this happening after said, first flight had taken place on September 20, 1943).
If this first flight was indeed delayed, then this can only be blamed on the decision to provide two specimen to Gloster, in order to get their F.9/40 airborne, thus confirming some kind of political pressure.

Lockheed had originally procured one H-1B engine for their XP-80, but on November 17, 1943, during a ground run-up, preparatory to the first flight, the intake duct collapsed as a result of the engine suction, and the first flight had to be postponed to allow replacement and stiffening of the ducts themselves.
I believe, this was mainly caused by two factors:
1. lack of experience on Lockheed’s side with the forces involved
2. haste to complete the prototype to meet the contractual requirement (Lockheed had committed itself to deliver a prototype in 180 days!!!)
The H-1B’s impeller was found to have been damaged and a new engine had to be procured. Curiously, the damage to the impeller had not been caused by debris from the intake duct, but rather by some construction flaw, and it was actually a fortunate coincidence that the accident itself had happened as there were good chances that the engine could have suffered a failure during the first flight with possible catastrophic consequences.
The replacement H-1B is the one that had originally been earmarked for the E.6/41’s second prototype whose first flight had thus to be postponed.


so there is an error in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire which is where I picked up the delay story. Delay to #2 confused with #1? maybe the first XP-80 engine was destined for #1 but was shipped over?

It would be very useful if people here could document sources for statements. Probably none of us have first hand experience of the development of these airframes or of flying these aircraft in combat conditions.

[Pete57]

As I have mentioned before, there are two generally accepted dates for the E.6/41’s first flight, these being September 20, 1943 and September 26, 1943.

Wikipedia quotes September 30, 1943, but given their confusion over the engine handout to Lockheed, I would not give too much credit to it.;)

In order to list all my sources, I would need to have a PC and a DSL line at home, neither of which I currently have.:(

To quote some, in no particular order:

- De Havilland DH 100 Vampire -

David Watkins,
De Havilland Vampire: The Complete History

W.A.Harrison
De Havilland Vampire, Warpaint Series Nr.27

- Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star -

David R. McLaren
Lockheed P-80/F-80 Shooting Star: A Photo Chronicle

E. T.Wooldridge,
The P-80 Shooting Star: Evolution of a Jet Fighter

- Bell P-59 Airacomet -

Steve Pace
P-59 Airacomet Air Force Legends Number 208

David M. Carpenter
P-59 Airacomet, First Jet, flame powered

- Gloster G.41Meteor -

Edward Shacklady,
The Gloster Meteor

Chaz Bowyer,
Gloster Meteor

M. J. Caruana
The Gloster Meteor and AW Meteor: A Comprehensive Guide for the Modeller

Steven J. Bond,
Meteor : Gloster's First Jet Fighter

Barry Jones
Gloster Meteor

[2stroke]

...Long time no see... :D

I'm picking this tread up again....

Does anyboody have something to say about the Focke Wulf Ta-183 ??

Any new facts or drawings or blue prints or pictures ?

[GregP]

2-Stroke,

The Ta-183 was a design study that was never built. The closest it came to being built was in post-war Argentina.

There have been drawings posted in this thread and that is the best you are going to get.

You have gotten drawings, book titles, a suggestion to contact SAAB, and lively discussion. What are you looking for that has not been posted already?

[ChrisMcD]

Hi 2stroke

Have you tried Luft 46?

http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh183-6.jpg